Thread: Can we please jail Mitt Romney for slander?

You want to send people to prison for lying? Grow up, and collectively learn the basic skill of scepticism.

Mitt Romney is partially responsible for the fact that he pays less taxes than the rest of society. He should be jailed for that.

Ok, I agree that is a bit of an overly-strong emotional reaction. Surely though you understand the overall point - that I am amazed that this behavior goes on relatively unchecked in the people we expect to lead our country.

And obviously that's the fault of the people who should be doing the checking...

If you keep letting 'em lie they're gonna keep lying.

I am pretty sure they don't bother suing each other, because once one of them sues the other is going to counter sue and it will be a mess. So it is kind of agreed both are allowed to lie and they will settle it in the voting booth.

Lewis Black needs to take his medication.

Obama gave the people zero credit on building roads with his initial comment, but then he sort of retracted that when he talked about doing things together. Romney said a worker at a business didn't build the business by himself. I guess Obama's words came out wrong initially.

Did the stimulus money go partly to electric cars in Finland? Indirectly, perhaps. Bush started a program in 2007, and through that program, a loan was given to an American electric car company in Finland. I was not able to tell in my reading if Obama had to approve that specific loan. Every article I read was biased and fuzzy. The conservative sources seemed to suggest Obama approved the loan through a Bush program. The loan iteslf did not contain stimulus money, but $10 million in administrative expenses regarding the loan did.

PolitiFact | Ryan says stimulus dollars paid for electric cars in Finland and windmills from China

Does that mean stimulus money went to an electric car company in Finland? Directly, no. In their favor, yes.

Now for Obama's lies... First, watch this 10 second video so you can really get the significance of the first part of the second video.

Pelosi: "We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It" - YouTube

And now for the main event...

65 Outrageous Lies by President Obama - YouTube

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Obama gave the people zero credit on building roads with his initial comment, but then he sort of retracted that when he talked about doing things together. Romney said a worker at a business didn't build the business by himself. I guess Obama's words came out wrong initially.

The fuck are you talking about? You want to tell me Wal-Mart built all the roads and bridges they ship goods across? Or the electricity distribution systems that power their stores and warehouses? I'm sure you don't mean that, so perhaps you should rephrase.

Wal-Mart doesn't pay taxes? What about their workers on the individual level? The idea that Wal-Mart builds roads and bridges goes with Obama's idea of doing things together. He was very much talking about taxes and government spending.

I watched the video again. I did at first miss how the "roads and bridges" part was left out of the ad. That was definitely very deceptive.

What do you think of the Obama video I posted?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I watched the video again. I did at first miss how the "roads..." part was left out of the ad. That was definitely very deceptive.

Dude...

The idea of taxes is part of it (i.e. they're doing their part) but that's not the point. Who organizes financing? Who plans those roads, who engineers them, who hires construction workers, who goes out there and builds them, and supervises? Who inspects the roads and makes sure they receive any necessary repairs?

Like Obama said, we all work together on building roads and bridges. So, when he said, "You didn't build that," he misspoke. A financer is a participant.

After watching the video a second time, I think what Black was going off about was mainly that the Romney ad goes straight to, "If you own a business, you didn't build that..." (or whatever the exact words were) The "that" is roads and bridges, not the business the viewer owns. It is a deception.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

After watching the video a second time, I think what Black was going off about was mainly that the Romney ad goes straight to, "If you own a business, you didn't build that..." (or whatever the exact words were) The "that" is roads and bridges, not the business the viewer owns. It is a deception.

Yes, that would be correct.

As for the video you posted: Ok, candidate Obama said whatever people wanted to hear, with an unfortunate disregard for honesty and realistic standards. I've said before elsewhere, the reason for this terrible behavior is that the voting public endorses it: not only do we support candidates who do it, we expect them to do so and probably wouldn't vote for them if they didn't make outrageous promises. What a shame.

It really doesnt matter who slanders who. They both lie, they are both owned by corporate interests who generate more money than any politician can compete with and we the people allow them to continue this process of lying, slandering and taking money under the table without demanding any change to our laws that would forbid it.

Man reading about what happens behind closed (or not so closed) doors in sociology has really made me cynical lol.

I'm not voting for either one of those clowns. I'm voting for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate. I'm sure that party would be very subject to corruption if they ever get huge, but I at least like what they stand for at this point. The Republicratic Party is extremely corrupt, economically devastating, and stagnant. In the video I posted about John Conyers dodging a very good question, a lady speaks up as if she is his representative. She works for Johnson Products. WTF???? We really have a problem on our hands.

If you're referring to the cop, she just alerted an on duty security guard to a situation which might require his attention. That's not "sicking" him on anyone, nor does it imply that she has any authority over him.

Originally Posted by Supernova

If you're referring to the cop, she just alerted an on duty security guard to a situation which might require his attention. That's not "sicking" him on anyone, nor does it imply that she has any authority over him.

I just meant that she is the one who stepped up and spoke up for Conyers, as if she was representing him. She is a corporate representative, and she did that. It's a little fucked up. I'm alluding to the connection between corporations and government. It might be the scariest stuff in politics.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I just meant that she is the one who stepped up and spoke up for Conyers, as if she was representing him. She is a corporate representative, and she did that. It's a little fucked up. I'm alluding to the connection between corporations and government. It might be the scariest stuff in politics.

The government created corporations. There never was, and never will be, a time when corporations aren't involved with government. That would be a non-sequitor. They're evil of course, but don't pretend there's such thing as a non-evil corporation, any more than there's such thing as non-evil government.